Parry writes: "Though faced with a global terrorism crisis, Official
Washington can't get beyond its neocon-led 'tough-guy-gal' rhetoric. But
another option - financial sanctions on Saudi Arabia - might help finally
shut down the covert supply of money and arms to Al Qaeda and the Islamic
State."
Saudi policemen stand guard in front of 'Al-rajhi Mosque' in central Riyadh.
(photo: Getty Images)
Hitting Saudi Arabia Where It Hurts
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
28 November 15
Though faced with a global terrorism crisis, Official Washington can't get
beyond its neocon-led "tough-guy-gal" rhetoric. But another option -
financial sanctions on Saudi Arabia - might help finally shut down the
covert supply of money and arms to Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, writes
Robert Parry.
As the Islamic State and Al Qaeda enter a grim competition to see who can
kill more civilians around the world, the fate of Western Civilization as
we've known it arguably hangs in the balance. It will not take much more
terror for the European Union to begin cracking up and for the United States
to transform itself into a full-scale surveillance state.
Yet, in the face of this crisis, many of the same people who set us on this
road to destruction continue to dominate - and indeed frame - the public
debate. For instance, Official Washington's neocons still insist on their
recipe for "regime change" in countries that they targeted 20 years ago.
They also demand a new Cold War with Russia in defense of a corrupt
right-wing regime in Ukraine, further destabilizing Europe and disrupting
U.S.-Russian cooperation in Syria.
Given the stakes, you might think that someone in a position of power - or
one of the many candidates for U.S. president - would offer some pragmatic
and realistic ideas for addressing this extraordinary threat. But most
Republicans - from Marco Rubio to Carly Fiorina to Ted Cruz - only offer
more of "more of the same," i.e. neocon belligerence on steroids. Arguably,
Donald Trump and Rand Paul are exceptions to this particular hysteria, but
neither has offered a coherent and comprehensive counter-analysis.
On the Democratic side, frontrunner Hillary Clinton wins praise from the
neocon editors of The Washington Post for breaking with President Barack
Obama's hesitancy to fully invade Syria. Former Secretary of State Clinton
wants an invasion to occupy parts of Syria as a "safe area" and to destroy
Syrian (and presumably Russian) planes if they violate her "no-fly zone."
Much like the disastrous U.S. invasions of Iraq and Libya, Clinton and her
neocon allies are pitching the invasion of Syria as a humanitarian venture
to remove a "brutal dictator" - in this case, President Bashar al-Assad - as
well as to "destroy" the Islamic State, which Assad's army and its
Iranian-Russian allies have also been fighting. Assad's military, Iranian
troops and Russian planes have hit other jihadist groups, too, such as Al
Qaeda's Nusra Front and Ahrar al-Sham, which receives U.S. weapons as it
fights side-by-side with Nusra in the Army of Conquest.
Clinton's strategy likely would protect jihadists except for the Islamic
State - and thus keep hope alive for "regime change" - explaining why the
Post's neocon editors, who were enthusiastic boosters of the Iraq War in
2003, hailed her hawkish approach toward Syria as "laudable."
To Clinton's left, Sen. Bernie Sanders has punted on the issue of what to do
in either Syria or the Middle East, failing to offer any thoughtful ideas
about what can be done to stabilize the region. He opted instead for a
clever but vacuous talking point, arguing that the Saudis and other rich oil
sheiks of the Persian Gulf should use their wealth and militaries to bring
order to the region, to "get their hands dirty."
The problem is that the Saudis, the Qataris and the Kuwaitis - along with
the Turks - are a big part of the problem. They have used their considerable
wealth to finance and arm Al Qaeda and its various allies and spinoffs,
including the Islamic State. Their hands are already very dirty.
Saudi 'Hard Power'
What we have seen in the Middle East since the 1980s is Saudi Arabia and
other Sunni states creating "hard power" for their regional ambitions by
assembling paramilitary forces that are willing and even eager to lash out
at "enemies," whether against Shiite rivals or Western powers.
While the wealthy Saudis, Qataris and other pampered princes don't want to
become soldiers themselves, they're more than happy to exploit disaffected
young Sunnis, turn them into jihadists and unleash them. Al Qaeda (dating
back to the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan in the 1980s) and the Islamic
State (emerging in resistance to the U.S.-installed Shiite regime in Iraq
after 2003) are Saudi Arabia's foot soldiers.
This reality is similar to how the Reagan administration supported
right-wing paramilitary forces in Central America during the 1980s,
including "death squads" in El Salvador and Guatemala and the drug-tainted
"Contras" in Nicaragua. These extremists were willing to do the "dirty work"
that Reagan's CIA considered necessary to reverse the tide of leftist
revolution in the region, but with "deniability" built in so Official
Washington couldn't be directly blamed for the slaughters.
Also, in the 1980s, the Reagan administration's hardliners, including CIA
Director William J. Casey, saw the value of using Islamic extremism to
undermine the Soviet Union, with its official position of atheism. The CIA
and the Saudis worked hand in hand in building the Afghan mujahedeen - an
Islamic fundamentalist movement - to overthrow the Soviet-backed secular
government in Kabul.
The "success" of that strategy included severe harm dealt to the struggling
Soviet economy and the eventual ouster (and murder) of the Moscow-backed
president, Najibullah. But the strategy also gave rise to the Taliban, which
took power and installed a medieval regime, and Al Qaeda, which evolved from
the Saudi and other foreign fighters (including Saudi Osama bin Laden) who
had flocked to the Afghan jihad.
In effect, the Afghan experience created the modern jihadist movement - and
the Saudis, in particular, understood the value of this paramilitary force
to punish governments and political groups that the Saudis and their
oil-rich friends considered threats. Officially, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and
other Sunni oil states could claim that they weren't behind the terrorists
while letting money and arms slip through.
Though Al Qaeda and the other jihadists had their own agendas - and could
take independent action - the Saudis and other sheiks could direct these
paramilitary forces against the so-called "Shiite crescent," from Iran
through Syria to Lebanon (and after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003,
against Iraq's Shiite government as well).
At times, the jihadists also proved useful for the United States and Israel,
striking at Hezbollah in Lebanon, fighting for "regime change" in Syria,
collaborating in the 2011 ouster (and murder) of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi,
even joining forces with the U.S.-backed Ukrainian government to kill ethnic
Russians in eastern Ukraine.
Israeli Role
Since these Sunni jihadists were most adept at killing Shiites, they
endeared themselves not only to their Saudi, Qatari and Kuwaiti benefactors,
but also to Israel, which has identified Shiite-ruled Iran as its greatest
strategic threat. Thus, the American neocons, who collaborate closely with
Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, had mixed attitudes
toward the Sunni jihadists, too.
Plus, high-profile terrorism, including the 9/11 attacks, enabled the
tough-talking neocons to consolidate their control over U.S. foreign policy,
diverting American fury over Al Qaeda's killing nearly 3,000 people in New
York and Washington to implement the neocons' "regime change" agenda, first
in Iraq though it had nothing to do with 9/11, with plans to move on to
Syria and Iran.
As the Military-Industrial Complex made out like bandits with billions upon
billions of dollars thrown at the "War on Terror," grateful military
contractors kicked back some profits to major think tanks where neocon
thinkers were employed to develop more militaristic plans. [See
Consortiumnews.com's "A Family Business of Perpetual War."]
But the downside of this coziness with the Sunni jihadists has been that Al
Qaeda and its spinoff, the Islamic State, perceive the West as their
ultimate enemy, drawing from both historic and current injustices inflicted
on the Islamic world by Europe and the United States. The terrorist leaders
cite this mistreatment to recruit young people from impoverished areas of
the Middle East and the urban slums of Europe - and get them to strap on
suicide-belts.
Thus, Al Qaeda and now the Islamic State not only advance the
neocon/Israeli/Saudi agenda by launching terror attacks in Syria against
Assad's government and in Lebanon against Hezbollah, but they strike out on
their own against U.S. and European targets, even in Africa where Al Qaeda
claimed responsibility for last week's murderous assault on an upscale
Radisson Blu hotel in Bamako, Mali.
It also appears that Al Qaeda and the Islamic State have entered into a
competition over who can stage the bloodiest attacks against Westerners as a
way to bolster recruitment. The Bamako attack was an attempt by Al Qaeda to
regain the spotlight from the Islamic State which boasted of a vicious
string of attacks on Paris, Beirut and a Russian tourist flight in the
Sinai.
The consequence of these murderous rampages has been to threaten the
political and economic cohesion of Europe and to increase pressures for a
strengthened surveillance state inside the United States. In other words,
some of the most treasured features of Western civilization - personal
liberty and relative affluence - are being endangered.
Yet, rather than explain the real reasons for this crisis - and what the
possible solutions might be - no one in the U.S. mainstream political world
or the major media seems able or willing to talk straight to the American
people about how we got here.
Sanders's Lost Opportunity
While you might have expected as much from most Republicans (who have
surrounded themselves with neocon advisers) and from Hillary Clinton (who
has cultivated her own ties to the neocons and their liberal interventionist
sidekicks), you might have hoped that Sanders would have adopted a
thoughtful critique of Official Washington's neocon-dominated "group think."
But instead he offers a simplistic and nonsensical prescription of demanding
the Saudis do more - when that would only inflict more death and destruction
on the region and beyond. Arguably, the opposite would make much more sense
- impose tough financial sanctions against Saudi Arabia as punishment for
its continued support for Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.
Freezing or confiscating Saudi bank accounts around the world might finally
impress on the spoiled princes of the Persian Gulf oil states that there is
a real price to pay for dabbling in terrorism. Such an action against Saudi
Arabia also would send a message to smaller Sunni sheikdoms that they could
be next. Other pressures, including possible expulsion from NATO, could be
brought to bear on Turkey.
If the West finally got serious about stopping this financial and military
support for Al Qaeda, the Islamic State and their jihadist allies in Syria,
the violence might finally abate. And, if the United States and Europe put
pressure on the "moderate" Syrian opposition - whatever there is of it - to
compromise, a political solution might be possible, too.
Right now, the biggest obstacle to a political agreement appears to be the
U.S. insistence that President Assad be barred from elections once Syria
achieves some stability. Yet, if President Obama is so certain that the
Syrian people hate Assad, it seems crazy to let Assad's presumed defeat at
the polls obstruct such a crucial deal.
The only explanation for this U.S. stubbornness is that the neocons and the
liberal hawks have made "regime change" in Syria such a key part of their
agenda that they would lose face if Assad's departure was not mandated.
However, with the future of Western civilization in the balance, such
obstinate behavior seems not only feckless but reckless.
From understanding how this mess was made, some U.S. politician could
fashion an appeal that might have broad popular support across the political
spectrum. If Sanders took up this torch for a rational plan for bringing
relative peace to the Middle East, he also might shift the dynamics of the
Democratic race.
Of course, to challenge Official Washington's "group think" is always
dangerous. If compromise and cooperation suddenly replaced "regime change"
as the U.S. goal, the neocons and liberal hawks would flip out. But the
stakes are extremely high for the planet's future. Maybe saving Western
civilization is worth the risk of facing down a neocon/liberal-hawk temper
tantrum.
________________________________________
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories
for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest
book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on
the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for
only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on
this offer, click here.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Saudi policemen stand guard in front of 'Al-rajhi Mosque' in central Riyadh.
(photo: Getty Images)
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/11/23/hitting-saudi-arabia-where-it-hurts/ht
tps://consortiumnews.com/2015/11/23/hitting-saudi-arabia-where-it-hurts/
Hitting Saudi Arabia Where It Hurts
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
28 November 15
Though faced with a global terrorism crisis, Official Washington can't get
beyond its neocon-led "tough-guy-gal" rhetoric. But another option -
financial sanctions on Saudi Arabia - might help finally shut down the
covert supply of money and arms to Al Qaeda and the Islamic State, writes
Robert Parry.
s the Islamic State and Al Qaeda enter a grim competition to see who can
kill more civilians around the world, the fate of Western Civilization as
we've known it arguably hangs in the balance. It will not take much more
terror for the European Union to begin cracking up and for the United States
to transform itself into a full-scale surveillance state.
Yet, in the face of this crisis, many of the same people who set us on this
road to destruction continue to dominate - and indeed frame - the public
debate. For instance, Official Washington's neocons still insist on their
recipe for "regime change" in countries that they targeted 20 years ago.
They also demand a new Cold War with Russia in defense of a corrupt
right-wing regime in Ukraine, further destabilizing Europe and disrupting
U.S.-Russian cooperation in Syria.
Given the stakes, you might think that someone in a position of power - or
one of the many candidates for U.S. president - would offer some pragmatic
and realistic ideas for addressing this extraordinary threat. But most
Republicans - from Marco Rubio to Carly Fiorina to Ted Cruz - only offer
more of "more of the same," i.e. neocon belligerence on steroids. Arguably,
Donald Trump and Rand Paul are exceptions to this particular hysteria, but
neither has offered a coherent and comprehensive counter-analysis.
On the Democratic side, frontrunner Hillary Clinton wins praise from the
neocon editors of The Washington Post for breaking with President Barack
Obama's hesitancy to fully invade Syria. Former Secretary of State Clinton
wants an invasion to occupy parts of Syria as a "safe area" and to destroy
Syrian (and presumably Russian) planes if they violate her "no-fly zone."
Much like the disastrous U.S. invasions of Iraq and Libya, Clinton and her
neocon allies are pitching the invasion of Syria as a humanitarian venture
to remove a "brutal dictator" - in this case, President Bashar al-Assad - as
well as to "destroy" the Islamic State, which Assad's army and its
Iranian-Russian allies have also been fighting. Assad's military, Iranian
troops and Russian planes have hit other jihadist groups, too, such as Al
Qaeda's Nusra Front and Ahrar al-Sham, which receives U.S. weapons as it
fights side-by-side with Nusra in the Army of Conquest.
Clinton's strategy likely would protect jihadists except for the Islamic
State - and thus keep hope alive for "regime change" - explaining why the
Post's neocon editors, who were enthusiastic boosters of the Iraq War in
2003, hailed her hawkish approach toward Syria as "laudable."
To Clinton's left, Sen. Bernie Sanders has punted on the issue of what to do
in either Syria or the Middle East, failing to offer any thoughtful ideas
about what can be done to stabilize the region. He opted instead for a
clever but vacuous talking point, arguing that the Saudis and other rich oil
sheiks of the Persian Gulf should use their wealth and militaries to bring
order to the region, to "get their hands dirty."
The problem is that the Saudis, the Qataris and the Kuwaitis - along with
the Turks - are a big part of the problem. They have used their considerable
wealth to finance and arm Al Qaeda and its various allies and spinoffs,
including the Islamic State. Their hands are already very dirty.
Saudi 'Hard Power'
What we have seen in the Middle East since the 1980s is Saudi Arabia and
other Sunni states creating "hard power" for their regional ambitions by
assembling paramilitary forces that are willing and even eager to lash out
at "enemies," whether against Shiite rivals or Western powers.
While the wealthy Saudis, Qataris and other pampered princes don't want to
become soldiers themselves, they're more than happy to exploit disaffected
young Sunnis, turn them into jihadists and unleash them. Al Qaeda (dating
back to the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan in the 1980s) and the Islamic
State (emerging in resistance to the U.S.-installed Shiite regime in Iraq
after 2003) are Saudi Arabia's foot soldiers.
This reality is similar to how the Reagan administration supported
right-wing paramilitary forces in Central America during the 1980s,
including "death squads" in El Salvador and Guatemala and the drug-tainted
"Contras" in Nicaragua. These extremists were willing to do the "dirty work"
that Reagan's CIA considered necessary to reverse the tide of leftist
revolution in the region, but with "deniability" built in so Official
Washington couldn't be directly blamed for the slaughters.
Also, in the 1980s, the Reagan administration's hardliners, including CIA
Director William J. Casey, saw the value of using Islamic extremism to
undermine the Soviet Union, with its official position of atheism. The CIA
and the Saudis worked hand in hand in building the Afghan mujahedeen - an
Islamic fundamentalist movement - to overthrow the Soviet-backed secular
government in Kabul.
The "success" of that strategy included severe harm dealt to the struggling
Soviet economy and the eventual ouster (and murder) of the Moscow-backed
president, Najibullah. But the strategy also gave rise to the Taliban, which
took power and installed a medieval regime, and Al Qaeda, which evolved from
the Saudi and other foreign fighters (including Saudi Osama bin Laden) who
had flocked to the Afghan jihad.
In effect, the Afghan experience created the modern jihadist movement - and
the Saudis, in particular, understood the value of this paramilitary force
to punish governments and political groups that the Saudis and their
oil-rich friends considered threats. Officially, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and
other Sunni oil states could claim that they weren't behind the terrorists
while letting money and arms slip through.
Though Al Qaeda and the other jihadists had their own agendas - and could
take independent action - the Saudis and other sheiks could direct these
paramilitary forces against the so-called "Shiite crescent," from Iran
through Syria to Lebanon (and after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003,
against Iraq's Shiite government as well).
At times, the jihadists also proved useful for the United States and Israel,
striking at Hezbollah in Lebanon, fighting for "regime change" in Syria,
collaborating in the 2011 ouster (and murder) of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi,
even joining forces with the U.S.-backed Ukrainian government to kill ethnic
Russians in eastern Ukraine.
Israeli Role
Since these Sunni jihadists were most adept at killing Shiites, they
endeared themselves not only to their Saudi, Qatari and Kuwaiti benefactors,
but also to Israel, which has identified Shiite-ruled Iran as its greatest
strategic threat. Thus, the American neocons, who collaborate closely with
Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, had mixed attitudes
toward the Sunni jihadists, too.
Plus, high-profile terrorism, including the 9/11 attacks, enabled the
tough-talking neocons to consolidate their control over U.S. foreign policy,
diverting American fury over Al Qaeda's killing nearly 3,000 people in New
York and Washington to implement the neocons' "regime change" agenda, first
in Iraq though it had nothing to do with 9/11, with plans to move on to
Syria and Iran.
As the Military-Industrial Complex made out like bandits with billions upon
billions of dollars thrown at the "War on Terror," grateful military
contractors kicked back some profits to major think tanks where neocon
thinkers were employed to develop more militaristic plans. [See
Consortiumnews.com's "A Family Business of Perpetual War."]
But the downside of this coziness with the Sunni jihadists has been that Al
Qaeda and its spinoff, the Islamic State, perceive the West as their
ultimate enemy, drawing from both historic and current injustices inflicted
on the Islamic world by Europe and the United States. The terrorist leaders
cite this mistreatment to recruit young people from impoverished areas of
the Middle East and the urban slums of Europe - and get them to strap on
suicide-belts.
Thus, Al Qaeda and now the Islamic State not only advance the
neocon/Israeli/Saudi agenda by launching terror attacks in Syria against
Assad's government and in Lebanon against Hezbollah, but they strike out on
their own against U.S. and European targets, even in Africa where Al Qaeda
claimed responsibility for last week's murderous assault on an upscale
Radisson Blu hotel in Bamako, Mali.
It also appears that Al Qaeda and the Islamic State have entered into a
competition over who can stage the bloodiest attacks against Westerners as a
way to bolster recruitment. The Bamako attack was an attempt by Al Qaeda to
regain the spotlight from the Islamic State which boasted of a vicious
string of attacks on Paris, Beirut and a Russian tourist flight in the
Sinai.
The consequence of these murderous rampages has been to threaten the
political and economic cohesion of Europe and to increase pressures for a
strengthened surveillance state inside the United States. In other words,
some of the most treasured features of Western civilization - personal
liberty and relative affluence - are being endangered.
Yet, rather than explain the real reasons for this crisis - and what the
possible solutions might be - no one in the U.S. mainstream political world
or the major media seems able or willing to talk straight to the American
people about how we got here.
Sanders's Lost Opportunity
While you might have expected as much from most Republicans (who have
surrounded themselves with neocon advisers) and from Hillary Clinton (who
has cultivated her own ties to the neocons and their liberal interventionist
sidekicks), you might have hoped that Sanders would have adopted a
thoughtful critique of Official Washington's neocon-dominated "group think."
But instead he offers a simplistic and nonsensical prescription of demanding
the Saudis do more - when that would only inflict more death and destruction
on the region and beyond. Arguably, the opposite would make much more sense
- impose tough financial sanctions against Saudi Arabia as punishment for
its continued support for Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.
Freezing or confiscating Saudi bank accounts around the world might finally
impress on the spoiled princes of the Persian Gulf oil states that there is
a real price to pay for dabbling in terrorism. Such an action against Saudi
Arabia also would send a message to smaller Sunni sheikdoms that they could
be next. Other pressures, including possible expulsion from NATO, could be
brought to bear on Turkey.
If the West finally got serious about stopping this financial and military
support for Al Qaeda, the Islamic State and their jihadist allies in Syria,
the violence might finally abate. And, if the United States and Europe put
pressure on the "moderate" Syrian opposition - whatever there is of it - to
compromise, a political solution might be possible, too.
Right now, the biggest obstacle to a political agreement appears to be the
U.S. insistence that President Assad be barred from elections once Syria
achieves some stability. Yet, if President Obama is so certain that the
Syrian people hate Assad, it seems crazy to let Assad's presumed defeat at
the polls obstruct such a crucial deal.
The only explanation for this U.S. stubbornness is that the neocons and the
liberal hawks have made "regime change" in Syria such a key part of their
agenda that they would lose face if Assad's departure was not mandated.
However, with the future of Western civilization in the balance, such
obstinate behavior seems not only feckless but reckless.
From understanding how this mess was made, some U.S. politician could
fashion an appeal that might have broad popular support across the political
spectrum. If Sanders took up this torch for a rational plan for bringing
relative peace to the Middle East, he also might shift the dynamics of the
Democratic race.
Of course, to challenge Official Washington's "group think" is always
dangerous. If compromise and cooperation suddenly replaced "regime change"
as the U.S. goal, the neocons and liberal hawks would flip out. But the
stakes are extremely high for the planet's future. Maybe saving Western
civilization is worth the risk of facing down a neocon/liberal-hawk temper
tantrum.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories
for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest
book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on
the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for
only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For details on
this offer, click here.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
